Bob in Mich

He has kept many of his promises but not kept many others. Shady had a list of promises he has not kept a page or so back. If you are saying those that elected him are happy, sure I would agree with that.

I hear they serve yellow cake at the Uranium One place.

Are you agreeing with my point? Seems so but no precedent for that. The point being, it depends if you like the promised action as to whether you are happy that the promise is kept.

Why would you assume I fail to recall who won the election? That fact has nothing to do with the question I was replying to. BTW, I wasn't talking to you either. BTW too, you still haven't answered my very simple question. Why? Here it is: Simple question: If Trump acted exactly as accused and for the exact motivations proposed by the House Dems, are those actions OK with you and is it OK for all politicians now going forward? Listen, we have standards here and you are not measuring up. Either do better or get lost, k?

And now there's this outrage to add to his crappy record, eh? https://news.yahoo.com/mitt-romney-violated-senate-rules-211931036.html?.tsrc=daily_mail&uh_test=1_02

Simple case example....I say I will crap on your rug, pee in your kitchen sink, and then spit at you. Next time at your place (lol) I do all I said. Would you approve of what I had done? Overly simplistic but I hope you see why one could disapprove of kept promises.

Yeah, ya caught me. I quit counting at 17 but know that most polls show the country pretty much evenly divided.

pre-appropriated funds were withheld. This apparently surprised most all of the witnesses because it was not the policy they had been working toward. Our policy at the time was to give them the aid and not leverage it and withhold it for announcements of investigations

I have been honest. There are times I may have used some sarcasm but aside from that, always honest. Again, point to specific postings that you think show something other than honesty. You like assignments, right? lol There are a lot of reasons for not answering a post. What are you talking about? I have dealt with most all of them just today. -I got too many replies to give thought and time to them all. - Have I already answered the issue in a recent post? - I may check out because I have something else to do - I may not answer because some posted questions are just stupid - I may not answer because to do so would take a reply of great length and I don't feel that energetic at the time. -etc Don't be so quick to assume you know every motivation. You don't. I don't recall your specific question. I tried to actually reply to your Bondi question. I understand too about not wanting to expend more energy on my postings. I feel just that way with several posters here too.

You realize that there are over 150 million people in the country that agree with me and disagree with you about that election interference take. It may not seem it down here but it is clearly not as cut and dry as you claim. And, you still haven't found enough integrity to answer the simple question I asked. I am not the least bit surprised to be perfectly honest with you.

The president does not have the right to leverage Congressionally preapproved aid for his own personal political benefit,WHEN THAT POLICY IS COMPLETELY CONTRARY TO THE NATIONAL POLICY. Like several other situations, the President has control of many decisions and can decide what he wants EXCEPT if those actions are deemed to be for corrupt purposes. I am not the only one that thinks what he did was improper. Remember the witnesses in the House? 17 largely Trump employees testified under oath that they, generally speaking, thought it was improper and appeared to them to be for political purposes I don't dispute what Biden bragged about. Never said I did. I dispute that the prosecutor was currently investigating Biden.'s son. It was sort of a worldwide consensus that that particular prosecutor wasn't doing enough to root out corruption. Quid pro quo's are not the problem, for about the tenth time now. It is the personal political benefit that makes this unacceptable

I asked you a very simple question but it takes some integrity to reply in this forum. I notice you didn't reply. Coincidence?

I saw no corners. You are the one that at least as far as I have read, ignored my questions. Perhaps when I catch up you will have answers. Let's hope

Who knows if he gets re-elected at this point. I do not.know. If he does however, I don't want it to be because he tilted the election playing field through illegal actions. Will others do this? If it is deemed OK going forward then, yes they will, I predict.

Foxx, I find it more and more difficult to ignore your repeated insults. If they continue, I will stop engaging and just put you on ignore with DR and Tom. I don't need it. I have taken more time than I have to have a conversation here. You may disagree with my posts but I am not disingenuous. If so, where, what post? Notice that there are about a dozen or so folks that jump on my replies. Your side does not get flooded over like that so maybe you missed it. I stated earlier that I can't possibly give detailed replies to everyone. I noted that if I missed something to bring it up again. I watched about a half hour of Bondi off Youtube. She made a good case for not voting for Hunter for anything. She made a very strong case that he displayed pretty poor judgement. His board position looked bad and she made that point. She also threw a lot of suspicion on JoeB but from the part I saw, not proof of anything other than the prosecutor firing. Since that was our nation's policy I don't see any equivalence to Trump's affair. Is it possible that JoeB didn't want Hunter in that job? Is it possible that Hunter took it over Joe's objections? I don't know but I am just pointing out that surmising evil intentions by JoeB may not be correct.

That is the second poster that won't address the OJ analogy. It's just ridiculous? I agree that it is ridiculous logic but it mirrors pretty well what you are claiming should be done in treating Trump. So, what do you think? No further oversight of OJ? Trump? I don't like Trump. Never have. Believe it or don't, on the day after the election I was talking to my sis, who would fit in with the Trump supports here. She called to gloat but I told her that he is my President now too. If he does a good job I told her that I would vote for him in 2020. I don't think he has done that. None of that though is why he should be impeached. He should be impeached and removed for exactly what the House accuses him of doing. None of us should be OK with illegal foreign election interference, imo. You may feel it should be OK.

If Biden fired the guy that was investigating his son, which I dispute at this time, but if so and that firing aligned with our country's national policy, then it is not as shady as implied. Did it look bad? Yup. How did it differ from Trump's quid pro quo? The request of Trump was not aligned with national policy and appears to be simply about smearing Biden, his political opponent. As the WH lawyers pointed out, there were many news stories about this and how bad it looked. Did these stories build over time to eventually show all the shady dealings you guys are implying? It seems if a reporter had their teeth into this story they would not just drop it. Did they all drop the stories or is there now a mountain of evidence that Foxx is sitting on?

Simple question: If Trump acted exactly as accused and for the exact motivations proposed by the House Dems, are those actions OK with you and is it OK for all politicians now going forward?

If you don't wish to engage in a discussion with me, don't quote me. I promise I will stop quoting you, if you wish. (SEE DR, not hard at all) I am not asking for anything that difficult. If you know where the good info is and wish to discuss some point, tell me. I am waaaay too old to accept assignments here. As I said earlier to you (I think), if you have a point, make it. Don't ask posters to go back and dig into something if you already have the info at your fingertips. If you disagree or don't like that, don't reply to me.

I asked someone earlier: If new murder allegations are brought against OJ, should they be investigated? Of course, right? Well, not if you follow the logic you are using in treating Trump. After all OJ was acquitted of a prior murder and was clearly dragged through hell in the process. The new charges must be BS because 'they' have been after the guy for years. Make sense? Nope and it shouldn't make sense using that logic treating the President either. Trump plays the victim to the hilt. You apparently buy that and see him as a victim. I see him as a shady character that is in no way above breaking laws to get his way. There are still several investigations on the guy, not because 'they' just hate orangeman. He brings investigations on to himself. He demands loyalty to Trump in his hires, as several past employees have claimed. Does it bother you that everyone he actually hires in some way pledges to be loyal to him ? That is sort of like organized crime families and does bother me. The NDA's with all employees? Do you wonder why he no longer complains about not having his own Roy Cohn heading Justice? Answer: imo, he has his protection in place now. Ever wonder why he has been involved in over 4000 lawsuits? Do you have over 20 claims of sexual abuse against you? Anyone you know personally have more than 1? The guy is 'picked on' because of his actions, statements, and the actions and statements of the people he associates with. Perhaps you should wake up.

I think Biden is/was a recognizable name that may add legitimacy. Apparently Burisma disagreed with your view too. Rather than implying misdeeds, please show us what you actually know.

I don't know. Let's ask Atkinson what he knows about all of this. Is he unwilling to give testimony to the Senate? Conjecture is tough when I don't know who the guy is yet. lol Was it related at all to trying to protect the whistle blower's identity? I know that is why the House says they refused some House Repub requests.

I am unsure how you got that impression of the hiring. It wasn't in my posting. I imagine Burisma put Biden on the board to try to add a measure of legitimacy. Board members are very often 'names' and not necessarily subject matter experts, as in Hunter's Amtrak board job. If there is proof of illegal schemes and payments, that should be uncovered. If illegal actions were taken, discover who and punish appropriately. What proof is out there of this?

May not be hard if you ignore half the story I guess. Was it rushed or are they dragging this out? Seems claiming both just allows you to think you should just plain complain. Figure out later why, eh? So, you then would not complain if the House reopens this and goes through the subpeona/court cases? Still no issue if hearings run up to election day?